Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

PsychoSarah said:

...No rational designer would bother to make commonalities between non-coding regions, because they don't do anything and thus don't have to have any specified content.

Click to expand...

Minor correction - some non-coding DNA is functional, it just doesn't code for proteins, but may have regulatory functions in genome expression.

Quick reply as I’m dead tired.

AnotherAtheist said:

I am familiar with some creation stories, and looked at Wikipedia to see more. While creation from chaos is a major category of creation stories, they are many and varied. E.g.

Creation ex Nihilo
Earth Diver
Creation from Chaos
Earth Parents
Emergence Myths
Creation by Dismembering a Primordial Being

Click to expand...

Yes, I should have been clearer my point was in relation to creation stories of the Ancient Near East, as these are part of the relevant context (when discussing Genesis) that provides clues to what creation meant to people at that time, along with contemporaneous literature etc. That said, many (not all - as far as I know) of the other types of myth contain motifs, e.g. deep water or an abyss, that are commonly used to denote some state of ‘unbeing’ in the sense of not having been brought into order, not purposeful or civilised. Deep places and deep water often signify in ancient literature things that contrast with the order and purpose of community life etc. Nb I’m not just plucking that out of the air but there’s just to much info on this to try and support it with quotes.

AnotherAtheist said:

This description, to me, seems closer to an atheistic explanation of religion and creation stories. From an atheist perspective, we'd expect creation stories (and religions) to reflect the societies that they came from, rather than a universal truth.

Click to expand...

It’s just an explanation. I’m not sure how much to write about this as it’s all just summaries of much wider issues.

AnotherAtheist said:

I'll mention that from an atheistic perspective we can compare historically recent religions for which we know the origin (Scientology, Tenrikyo) to older religions when theorising (or wildly conjecturing) how the older religions came about.

Click to expand...

That’s an approach that assumes similarity in thought between different eras. A copy of a belief system or something that imitates or co-opts some features of such a system is more likely to be based in later perception of the original and its affects than on a proper understanding of it’s origins. All belief systems reflect different aspects of basic human functioning and needs but what priorities and overall mindsets give birth to what expression of those things at what point in history is much more complicated. But that’s a very layered argument. The best I can offer you in a few words as a starting point is to suggest reading Auerbach’s Mimesis (if you haven’t already). It’s a complex book but basically outlines how the literature and sacred writings of different eras both reflects and helped to define those cultures in ways that are pretty comprehensive. This is a good book to provide an initial layer from which the writings of e.g. David Rosenberg on Abraham can be appreciated and understood.
That’s without getting into what makes Judaism, Christianity stand out.

AnotherAtheist said:

I've looked at a review of 'The Lost World of Genesis 1', and I'm not sure it's the right thing to read for me to understand the origin of Christianity, as it appears to presuppose the truth of The Bible and is therefore not objective to my eyes.

Click to expand...

That seems a bit blinkered - ? It’s not a ‘this will lead you to believe in God book’, it’s an interpretation of the genesis creation narrative based in a technical examination of the Hebrew, other relevant parts of the bible and analysis of the religious and literary writings of contemporary cultures regarding their overall thinking about ‘creation’ and what that means.

AnotherAtheist said:

My understanding of The Bible says that it is more than that. It includes morality, and an explanation of the natural (e.g. creation, diversity of life) and the supernatural (e.g. God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit.)

Click to expand...

Yes - insofar as those things have a bearing on God’s relationship to man, man’s relationship to God and people to each other etc etc. I’m not suggesting it’s 100% relationships, but that’s what most of it is given significance by. Given that we’re off topic and all the points raised here could fill a book, it might be worth narrowing it down to that, as it’s maybe the easiest one to address just using the bible.

AnotherAtheist said:

I can see that this is your personal interpretation of The Bible and the intentions of its authors. However, while I have understood more about what you believe, I don't see an argument that should convince me to accept your interpretation as better than mine.

Click to expand...

There wasn’t an argument, it’s just a very brief partial summary. I didn’t have any expectation that you would accept that as something to believe, I was just summarising a wider issue. I would say it’s a question that needs to be considered from the perspective of what makes up a culture, what are the different areas of study that inform that, what are the driving forces of a given culture and how is that expressed and so on, what is it that made Israel potentially distinct. For starters anyway.

pitabread said:

Except there is no "creation model" and consequently no predictions derived from it.

Click to expand...

actually there is. creation model for instance predict that we should find evidence for design. and we indeed find such evidence. or as prof dawkins put it:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"

Jimmy D said:

I haven’t read up on the justification for concluding that they are separate species so for sake of argument I can agree to disregard those two.

What about the rest of them? How are they explained by creationism?

Click to expand...

I don't know Jimmy, I am not a young earth creationist.

xianghua said:

actually there is. creation model for instance predict that we should find evidence for design. and we indeed find such evidence. or as prof dawkins put it:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"

Click to expand...

Appearance of design is not the same as evidence of design.

xianghua said:

actually there is. creation model for instance predict that we should find evidence for design. and we indeed find such evidence. or as prof dawkins put it:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"

Click to expand...

What a quote-mine!

There is no facts that point to design in nature.

PsychoSarah said:

We've told you before that this specific scientist is a wingnut with questionable and unrepeatable experimental results.

Click to expand...

first: other scientists basically agree with this position too base on some genetic evidence.

second: you dont think that an ape is more similar to other ape then to human?

Speedwell said:

ID is unfalsifiable, therefore it can make any prediction. Whatever you find in nature you can say, "It was designed that way."

Click to expand...

this definition fit well with evolution too: whatever you find in nature you can say :"evolution evolved it that way".

xianghua said:

first: other scientists basically agree with this position too base on some genetic evidence.

second: you dont think that an ape is more similar to other ape then to human?

Click to expand...

Humans are apes, thats a fact. Your religious beliefs cant change reality.

xianghua said:

first: other scientists basically agree with this position too base on some genetic evidence.

second: you dont think that an ape is more similar to other ape then to human?

Click to expand...

"Ape" is not a single species, it is a family of species to which humans belong. You will have to be more specific.

xianghua said:

this definition fit well with evolution too: whatever you find in nature you can say :"evolution evolved it that way".

Click to expand...

No there are quite a few ways to falsify the ToE.

xianghua said:

this definition fit well with evolution too: whatever you find in nature you can say :"evolution evolved it that way".

Click to expand...

Fortunately, real scientists do not share that fantasy. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty do not further your argument.

VirOptimus said:

No there are quite a few ways to falsify the ToE.

Click to expand...

Can you outline those?

AnotherAtheist said:

My point, using your analogy of Ferrari cars, is that what we see in living things is not what we would expect to see from competent, intelligent, design.

Just common similarity in itself isn't particularly strong evidence for evolution. However, the kinds of similarities that we see, e.g. see my previous reply to you, is strong evidence for evolution as it makes absolutely no sense if we posit a capable designer but complete sense if we posit biological evolution guided by feedback from the environment.

Click to expand...

can you give a specific example?

xianghua said:

can you give a specific example?

Click to expand...

I gave you a lot before. But as a more specific answer, broken genes that aren't fixed even in whole clades, such as the simian inability to synthesise vitamin C. It would be like one Ferrari car having a non-working tachometer, but the Ferrari designers copying the broken tachometer and putting a non-functioning one in later models of cars too.

Speedwell said:

Fortunately, real scientists do not share that fantasy. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty do not further your argument.

Click to expand...

what do you mean by "real scientists"? scientists who dont believe in creation?

AnotherAtheist said:

I gave you a lot before. But as a more specific answer, broken genes that aren't fixed even in whole clades, such as the simian inability to synthesise vitamin C. It would be like one Ferrari car having a non-working tachometer, but the Ferrari designers copying the broken tachometer and putting a non-functioning one in later models of cars too.

Click to expand...

ok. are you saying that it cant be the result of parallel loss?

xianghua said:

what do you mean by "real scientists"? scientists who dont believe in creation?

Click to expand...

No, I mean scientists who understand how a scientific theory can be falsified.

But since you raise the point, all scientists who are also theists believe in creation.

xianghua said:

ok. are you saying that it cant be the result of parallel loss?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that it makes no sense at all if we posit an intelligent and competent designer. As even the human and fallible Ferrari designers wouldn't do anything that stupid.

VirOptimus said:

No there are quite a few ways to falsify the ToE.

Click to expand...

such as? fossil in the wrong place for instance?